BOARD ORDERS April 2006

On December 15, 2005, respondent wa
s convicted of the following felonies in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: 12 counts of Mail Fraud, in violation of 18 USC 1341; eight counts of Illegal Monetary Transactions, in violation of 18 USC 1957; seven counts of

Money Laundering, in violation of 18 USC 1956(a)(1)(A)(I); four counts of Securities Fraud, in violation of 15 USC 78j(b); three counts of Sale of Unregistered Securities, in violation of 15 USC 77e(a); one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering,
in violation of 18 USC 1956(h); and one count of Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud and Mail Fraud, in violation of 18 USC 371.

In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended
on the date of his felony conviction.

This matter has been assigned to a hearing panel for further proceedings. The interim suspension will remain in effect until the effective date of an order filed by a hearing panel.

The hearing panel found th
at respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; engaged in conduct that exposed the legal profession to contempt and censure; neglected a matter entrusted to him; failed to act with reasonable promptness and diligence; and,
upon termination of his representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect his client’s interests. Respondent’
s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1), (2), and (4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.16(d); 8.4(a) and (c).

The hearing panel ordered that respondent’s license be suspended for one year with conditions relative to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $3,943.76.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since June 1, 2003. Please see Notice of Suspension and Restitution, dated February 26, 2003.

The hearing panel found that respondent, in a probate matter, neglected the estate; failed to take appropriate action to garne
r and conserve the assets of the estate; abandoned the estate; failed to maintain communications with his client; and misrepresented to opposing counsel that he was working on the matter and was in contact with the probate analyst. Respondent’
s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 4.1; and 8.4(a)-(c). The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice in Michigan be suspended for 90 days.

On April 7, 2006, the Grievance Administrator filed a timely conditional petition for review which has been scheduled for hearing before the Attorney Discipline Board on July 20, 2006.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), containing respondent’
s plea of no contest to the allegations that, in a guardianship matter, she failed to conduct herself at all times in conformity with the standards for the privilege of practicing law in the State by
finding opposing party documents at the court house, which she neither returned nor timely brought to the attention of the judge, and instead, used the documents in the representation of her client. Respondent was charged with violations of MCR 9.104(A)(1
)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(a).

The parties agreed that respondent should be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,214.29.

The respondent was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint and failure to appear at the public hearing. Based on his default, the panel found that respondent neglected his clients’
legal matters; failed to seek his clients’ lawful objectives through reasonably available means permitted by law; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in his clients’
matters; failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; failed to refund the advance payment of a fee that has n
ot been earned upon termination of the representation in three separate matters; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt , censure, or reproac
h; engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty or good morals; violated or attempted to violate the rules of professional conduct; failed to timely answer one request for investigation; and failed to answer three requests for investigation.

Respondent’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(c); 1.2(a); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.16(d); 8.1(a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice in Michigan be revoked, to run consecutively with the revocation ordered in Grievance Administrator v David J. O’
Brien, Case Nos. 05-06-GA; 05-23-FA; 05-34-GA. The respondent was also ordered to pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $2,407.75 and costs were assessed in the amount of $1,807.69.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since June 1, 2005. See Notice of Revocation and Restitution issued June 1, 2005.

The respondent was
found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on that default, the panel found that respondent, while suspended from the practice of law for non-payment of bar dues, practiced as an attorney by appearing for a pre
l
iminary examination. Respondent made representations to the court that his bar dues had been paid, but was unable to provide proof within the time frame specified by the court. Additionally, respondent did not pay his bar dues until four days after he app
e
ared for the preliminary examination. Finally, respondent failed to timely answer a request for investigation and the formal complaint served upon him by the Grievance Administrator; and made a misrepresentation in his answer to the request for investigat
ion that he had contacted the court on the date specified by the court.

Respondent’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4), (6), and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a); 3.4(c); 5.5(a); 8.1(a)(1) and(2); and 8.4(a)-(c). The hearing panel ordered that respondent
’s license to practice in Michigan be suspended for nine months and assessed costs in the amount of $1,888.13.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), containing respondent’s admission that he was convicted in the Michigan 34
th District Court for operating a motor vehicle while impaired, a misdemeanor. Respondent’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(5).

The parties agreed that respondent should be reprimanded and subject to a two year probationary period with conditions relative to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $767.68.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), containing respondent’
s plea of no contest that she failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her client, in violation of Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3.

The parties agreed that respondent should be reprimanded and costs were assessed in the amount of $999.52.

The respondent was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the
formal complaint or appear at the hearing. Based on that default, the panel found that respondent failed to answer a request for investigation served upon him by the Grievance Administrator.

Respondent’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c). The hearing panel ordered that respondent’
s license to practice in Michigan be suspended for one year, effective February 9, 2006, and assessed costs in the amount of $1,676.85.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since March 25, 2005. See Notice of Suspension and Restitution issued March 25, 2005.

The respondent was found to be in default for her failure to file an answer to the formal complaint and failure to appear at the public hearing. Based on that default, the panel found that respondent, in four matters, neglected her clients’
legal matters; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in her clients’
matters; failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and comply promptly with reasonable requests for information; and failed to promptly refund any advance payment of fees that had not been earned. In two matter
s, respondent failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Respondent was also found to have failed to provide competent representation to a client; engaged in

conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation; and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Finally, respondent was found to have failed to answer four requests for investigation served upon her by the Grievance Administrator.

Respondent’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4) and (7); MCR 9.113(A) and (B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a); 1.1(c); 1.3; 1.4(a) and (b); 1.16(d); 8.1(a)(2); and 8.4(a)-(c).

The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice in Michigan be revoked and that she pay restitution in the aggregate amount of $2,809.00, plus statutory interest. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,744.76.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended from the practice of law in Michigan since June 24, 2005. Please see Notice of Suspension issued June 27, 2005.

The respondent appeared at the hearing but was found to be in default for his failure to file an answer to the formal complaint. Based on that defa
ult, the panel found that respondent, in a divorce matter, failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’
s interests; failed to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled upon termination of representation; knowingly failed to resp
ond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority; and failed to answer a request for investigation.

Respondent’s conduct was in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4), (7); MCR 9.113(A); MCR 9.113(B)(2); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(d); 8.2(a)(2); and 8.4(a) and (c). The hearing panel ordered that respondent
’s license be suspended for 90 days.

The Grievance Administrator filed a timely conditional petition for review which was heard before the Attorney Discipline Board
on February 16, 2006. Respondent did not did not appear at the review hearing and the Board modified the hearing panel’
s order of suspension by increasing the period of suspension from 90 days to 180 days. Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,376.11.

The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), containing respondent’
s plea of no contest that he failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client, in violation of Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(a).

The parties agreed that respondent should be reprimanded and costs were assessed in the amount of $755.11.

Based on respondent’s admissions, the hearing panel found that he commingled and misappropriated client funds in violation of MCR 9.104(A)(1)-(4); and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)-(d); and 8.4(a)-(c).

On June 24, 2005, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the hearing panel issued an interim order suspending respondent’s lic
ense to practice in Michigan for two years, commencing July 1, 2005. The panel also ordered that respondent pay restitution in the amount of $11,983.34, and that he be subject to certain conditions relevant to the established misconduct.

Respondent filed a timely petition for review but withdrew the portion objecting to the suspension imposed and sought review only as to the panel’
s exclusion of evidence offered for the purpose of impeaching the complainant during the hearing to determine restitution.

Following review proceedings conducted under MCR 9.118, the Board clarified a condition of the panel’s order but otherwise affirmed the panel’s decision. Costs were assessed in the total amount of $2,863.78.

1 Respondent has been continuously suspended fr
om the practice of law in Michigan since July 1, 2005. Please see Notice of Interim Suspension and Restitution (With Conditions), dated July 6, 2005.